3 posts from December 2008

My response to this article.

First, I need to find and destroy whatever study it is claims that class size does not have a significant effect on student performance.   I understand the point being made (in this article and the study) that an effective teacher is more powerful than the teaching conditions, but I have a feeling that the study was culturally biased.  Of course 15 respectful students sitting quietly will not be much different than 30 respectful students sitting quietly.  But HELLO!!  Places exist where students come to school not accustomed to the sit-down-and-be-quiet school culture.  In these schools, 15 bouncing, yelling students are much easier to manage (and thus teach!) than 30 of them.  Not to mention, students performed noticeably better (and were more engaged) in my 18 person class than in my 36 person class.  That miserable study was not conducted at PCHS, HSHS, or any other critical needs district, so we shouldn't even try to apply its conclusions at our schools.

Alright, to the heart of the matter.  I loved Gladwell's idea to have a teacher apprenticeship system to find truly good teachers.  The fact that teaching allows for a wide range of personalities (the entertainer vs the nurturer) and skill sets (withitness and flexibility vs authority and humor vs organization and dedication etc) makes it impossible to find a secret recipe for a good teacher.  We've even talked about the prediction problem in terms of MTC and now Principal Corps.  It's just nearly impossible to predict who will stay teaching and who will leave before June is over.

 I have no problem "lowering standards" as far as test scores and formal training to invite more people into the profession as long as that change is coupled with a solid evaluation system (even though I don't really care if math teachers can write term papers, I do care that they can use proper grammar and know who the president is). But the kicker of it all was Gladwell's final question:

 What does it say about a society that it devotes more care and patience to the selection of those who handle its money than of those who handle its children?

Nothing in public education's history suggests that it will go to great lengths to find the best (or even good) teachers.  The system being proposed is not a shortcut (and public education craves shortcuts like Dauwalter craves Laffy Taffy).  What I mean is, I highly doubt teacher training and selection will be overhauled for the sake of improvement.  On the whole, public education is functioning.  Public education (public anything) does not move from decent to great voluntarily.  So even if this is a perfect plan, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for its implementation.

My second period came in quietly, sat down in the correct seats, opened up their books, began their warm-ups.  They listened respectfully as I outlined the day's lesson, and it made me sad.

"How long has BB been suspended?" I asked.

"Permanently."  KJ handed out calculators.

On Monday, BB got in his second fight of the school year.  This was his first year back to Potts Camp after being expelled for bad behavior two years ago.  Rumor has it that his time here was probationary... in other words, two fights is one and a half too many.

Honestly, I'm okay with my students settling down quicker and listening closer now that BB is not in the room.  One troubled student can quickly derail a lesson and distract the eagerly distracted.

But what happens to BB?  Like so many of my HSHS students, BB is well-intentioned, smart, and caring... and uncensored, loud, and energetic.  Potts Camp was a great place for BB to grow and succeed because he never slipped through the cracks-- all of the teachers know him, his family, his history, and his missing homework assignments.  If BB stayed at Potts Camp, he would graduate and probably go on to college should he cooperate with our amazing school counselor.

But now that he's not here? 

This is how it works: Potts Camp is a highly functioning school.  It functions so well partly because students who do not behave according to policy (ie by fighting) are expelled or taken to jail or get tired of being in trouble and transfer.  That means that the students who would most benefit from the structured and respectful environment at Potts Camp do not or cannot stay in the school.  But what good is a good school if it can't help BB?

How do we make good schools for the emotionally unbalanced/unparented/overly energetic students?  It's like that silly quote, "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would take me."  Who said that?  Karl says Marx Brothers.  Anyway.   What I mean by that is, I don't want BB at any school that would take him.  He belongs at a school that is so highly functioning that it would kick him out. 

BB will have his best chance of success at schools that won't keep him.  Something's wrong here.